Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So you want to build a carbon capture company

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 180 posts

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#81

Post by henearkr »

WJW wrote: post #53
vkou wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the problem. The problem is 'What assurance does the Department of State have that your space death ray is not going to be deliberately pointed at the next RNC?' and 'What assurances does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have that it is not going to be deliberately pointed at the May Day Parade?' You're incredibly unlikely to explain yourself to the satisfaction of both of those groups of people at the same…

Not to mention: - What assurances does the Department of Defense have that North Koreas orbital death ray will not cook the white house at any moment.

Well obviously what I said only stands in non-dictatorship.

I don't care to comment on the dictatorship case, that's bad anyway if they launch any satellite at all, we'll never know what's in, so that's not an actionable subject of discussion (except, shoot down all of their spacecrafts).

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#82

Post by chr1 »

Aerroon wrote: post #67
lokischild wrote: post #59

I have a hunch that there is no artifical process that could possibly compete with what nature already has. The answer is plants. So the solution would be a way to sustainably grow a lot of plants in a short time. But another main factor is the destruction of the densest of those ecosystems, the rain forest on a large scale. That is my answer, stop humans/companies/countries from destroying the rain forest on a large…

The ecosystem is more or less in a balance. Forests that are cut down will become forests again. Plants already grow pretty much everywhere where they can grow. It's still not enough. We've spent over 200 years pumping carbon into the atmosphere from a source we can't return it to. No amount of growing forests is going to fix this issue without being able to turn those forests into carbon that's in the ground. We nee…

Not only forests, but converting a desert, like Sahara, into agricultural land will help too. Same is true for ocean deserts, places where there is no upwards flow bringing nutrients from ocean floor to the surface, which is the majority of the ocean.

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#84

Post by andelu »

folli wrote: post #14
andelu wrote: post #4

I have an idea about genetically modifying algae to continuously synthesize and excrete cellulose or similar. In theory would only need sunlight and water to operate, and cellulose could sink to the bottom and collected. Anyone knows if this has been explored?

Why wouldn't you use wild type algae, they are already quite efficient in producing biomass?

That is not the same. Then you need nutrients for cell replication as well (amino acids/protein, minerals, vitamins). But if you just collect secreted hydrocarbons from algae you in theory only need sunlight and water, and a little nutrients to maintain the cells. Maybe one issue is that most algae replicate very often, maybe once a day. I used to do bioengineering of an algee (Chlamydomonas) in my Masters

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#85

Post by wodenokoto »

Aerroon wrote: post #67
lokischild wrote: post #59

I have a hunch that there is no artifical process that could possibly compete with what nature already has. The answer is plants. So the solution would be a way to sustainably grow a lot of plants in a short time. But another main factor is the destruction of the densest of those ecosystems, the rain forest on a large scale. That is my answer, stop humans/companies/countries from destroying the rain forest on a large…

The ecosystem is more or less in a balance. Forests that are cut down will become forests again. Plants already grow pretty much everywhere where they can grow. It's still not enough. We've spent over 200 years pumping carbon into the atmosphere from a source we can't return it to. No amount of growing forests is going to fix this issue without being able to turn those forests into carbon that's in the ground. We nee…

You’re so close to saying the solution without getting there.

Fast growing plants are probably the most effective carbon extraction we have. Problem is when they die they turn back into CO2.

So we should bury those plants before they rot. Our excess CO2 stems mostly from dead plants and animals that have been buried. Seems sensible to put some of our excess back into the ground.

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#86

Post by LeanderK »

I literally don't know anything about those processes beside super basic knowledge. But maybe somebody can explain to me why we can't use something like bio-inspired photosynthesis to extract co2? I bet plants are not co2 throughput optimised. The technology may not be there, but would it be feasible in theory without using too much energy?

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#87

Post by pwdisswordfish0 »

lokischild wrote: post #59

I have a hunch that there is no artifical process that could possibly compete with what nature already has. The answer is plants. So the solution would be a way to sustainably grow a lot of plants in a short time. But another main factor is the destruction of the densest of those ecosystems, the rain forest on a large scale. That is my answer, stop humans/companies/countries from destroying the rain forest on a large…

The US has a bunch of land. A thought occurred involving the US's surplus military personnel spending their days, after waking up from their barracks in some state in the west, tending to a massive bamboo garden, including cultivation, pruning, and disposal into giant pits. The Wikipedia article for bamboo even mentions its use in carbon sequestration prominently. Having looked into this before, though, I turned up a few sources that said bamboo alone has no net negative effect on atmospheric carbon, and might actually increase it.

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#88

Post by rhythmofrest »

lokischild wrote: post #59

I have a hunch that there is no artifical process that could possibly compete with what nature already has. The answer is plants. So the solution would be a way to sustainably grow a lot of plants in a short time. But another main factor is the destruction of the densest of those ecosystems, the rain forest on a large scale. That is my answer, stop humans/companies/countries from destroying the rain forest on a large…

This is the mission at Terraformation[0] (no affiliation)

[0]: https://www.terraformation.com/about

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#89

Post by mavhc »

justatdotin wrote: post #75
magicalhippo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Norwegian I agree we should phase out oil sooner. Like you say, not releasing the CO2 to begin with is the best option. However Norway is not the sole oil producer. If demand is not reduced and other producers compensate for our reduction, then that won't really help the planet at all. As such it seems reducing demand would be the best way. Not that easy to achieve on a global scale though, it would seem.

yes, that's what we all say

"He started it Miss, it's not my fault!"

Re: So you want to build a carbon capture company

#90

Post by KSteffensen »

magicalhippo wrote: post #69
nosianu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be far more efficient (since additional energy is used for all the actions around it all) to not bring up carbon from below ground in the first place. As long as Norway brings up new oil those actions are just marketing. See the article we are talking about here. First you spend energy to bring up carbon. Then you spend more energy to get it back down again. The math does not check out. Not bringing up the c…

As a Norwegian I agree we should phase out oil sooner. Like you say, not releasing the CO2 to begin with is the best option. However Norway is not the sole oil producer. If demand is not reduced and other producers compensate for our reduction, then that won't really help the planet at all. As such it seems reducing demand would be the best way. Not that easy to achieve on a global scale though, it would seem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Post reply on HN